There is, apparently, a film called Fur Eine Handvoll Dollar. Browsing through the SL Encyclopedia today (an amusing pastime I sometimes give myself to), I came across this interesting entry:So it appears that this one film (Fur Eine Handvoll Dollar) has at least two versions (a first and second dubbing). This has nothing to do with fact of other Leone films, such as Per un pugno di dollari and A Fistful of Dollars, which may or may not have alternate versions themselves.

Then call it a different CUT, not a different film, philistine. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that, you know, it's the same film.

So you're just never gonna explain why you think these are different movies?

I never said they are different movies, I just said that you can't assume that they aren't.

My principal idea here is that when you change dubs you significantly alter the performances of the actors involved. If you see a production of Macbeth where, say, Patrick Stewart plays the lead role, you're going to get a very different experience than if you were watching Charles Bronson speaking Shakespeare's words. The words are the same, the performance are different.

Cinema, of course, is not exactly the same thing. But I think for Italian films of the 50s and 60s (and perhaps later) where production practice was to always dub, never record direct sound for dialog, we have to consider the possibility that they were in effect producing different movies. Note I'm not talking about all dubbed films. I'm speaking specifically about the practice of post-synchronizing all the dialog, regardless of the film's country of origin. In those cases, there is no "original" dialogue; all alternate dialogues are equally valid.

In theory this would mean bothering about a whole hell of a lot of parallel films (Il Gattopardo vs. The Leopard, for example). In actual practice, though, I'm really only concerned about Leone's films. The question doesn't interest me much where other directors are concerned. Leone is a special category of creative excellence for me, so he's the only one I'm interested in applying this approach to. Consistency be damned. I'm not posting on the Visconti board, after all.

Logged

That's what you get, Drink, for not appreciating the genius of When You Read This Letter.

If you knew how films are dubbed nowadays, you wouldn't make such a big distinction: it has more to do with circus and ultra reactivity than crafting a worthy version.

Saying that different versions are different films is still weird and I still don't understand where you draw the line between a version and a film. For instance: most action actors (Clint, Stalone, Arnold, Bruce Willis, Ford...) have a very different voice in French versions of their films. They usually have beautiful deep voices in English, consistent with the way they look. In French, they often have a richer, more original voice. It often adds a lot to the character (it doesn't mean the dubbed version is better, it only means the voices are better). So you're saying they are different movies each time?

Concerning the "valid" version: the ones that are managed by the director of the film are all equally valid to me. He's responsible for how the film looks/sounds/feels. Of course if he cannot speak japanese, then he cannot manage the dubbing sessions. So for Leone, the italian and french versions are more valid than the japanese one.And then you have the best version. Indiana Jones or The Princess Bride are much better in French, even if it is not the valid version.

Saying that different versions are different films is still weird and I still don't understand where you draw the line between a version and a film. For instance: most action actors (Clint, Stalone, Arnold, Bruce Willis, Ford...) have a very different voice in French versions of their films. They usually have beautiful deep voices in English, consistent with the way they look. In French, they often have a richer, more original voice. It often adds a lot to the character (it doesn't mean the dubbed version is better, it only means the voices are better). So you're saying they are different movies each time?

No, again, I'm not saying that these different versions are necessarily different films. I'm saying that I don't want to assume in advance that they aren't. Every case has to be judged individually.

For films that have a principal or "original" language, the alternate dubs, whether valid or not, must be seen as subordinate to the principal one. The film in its "original" language is the film itself, its essential form, the alternate dubs are versions. Those kinds of films are not what I'm concerned with here.

When Leone was making his Westerns the Italian film industry's practice of post-looping dialogue allowed for the introduction of alternate modes of creative expression into the film/s produced. Some of this had to do with the different performances supplied by the different vocal talents recorded for different markets. But there were other factors as well, including changes to the script, sound design, music, etc. The aggregate changes made from one print to another could be substantial. When, after opening a bottle, you start adding water after every sip you take, eventually you have something that isn't wine.

I will rehearse a story known to us all. After premiering his third Italian Western in Rome in 1966, Leone took the film and recut it, then recut it again for distribution in English-speaking countries. Mickey Knox was hired to write dialogue. Vocal talents such as Eastwood, Wallach, and LVC were assembled to record lines and match them to the images on screen. For whatever reason, changes to the soundtrack were also made. A new title was chosen. When The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was released in 1967, it was a very different film from Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo.

Is GBU a version of BBC, or is BBC a version of GBU? Where lies the essential film? BBC was released first--is that sufficient to establish primacy? GBU uses vocals supplied by the three principal actors--is that sufficient to establish primacy? Is the question of primacy important at all? It isn't if you consider BBC and GBU two separate films.

Again as we all know, in 2003 an attempt was made to extend GBU by adding material from BBC with dodgy new English dubbing. Successful or not, this new version of GBU is just that--a new version of GBU. Is it also a new version of BBC? It doesn't seem very useful to think so. It is simpler to see GBU 1967 and GBU 2003 as two versions of one film, just as the Roman premier of BBC is a different version of the Western that went into subsequent release around Italy. But having looked at those films in that way, the word version then seems completely inadequate when comparing BBC (1966) to GBU (1967).

To restate: I'm not interested in applying this approach across the board. I don't care to be systematic. The films of Leone are a special area of concern. I'm interested in the alternate dubs of those films. I don't really care about the alternate dubs of other filmmakers.

Logged

That's what you get, Drink, for not appreciating the genius of When You Read This Letter.

in the egregious case of OUATIA, there's no doubt that the version we know and love is a different movie to the shit released in America in 1984.

In the case of the Westerns, I think it's fine to call it different versions, I think the discussion is more semantic, but definitely, there's a greater difference between the various releases, than, say, the difference would be between adding or deleting a 2-minute scene

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

No, again, I'm not saying that these different versions are necessarily different films. I'm saying that I don't want to assume in advance that they aren't. Every case has to be judged individually.

For films that have a principal or "original" language, the alternate dubs, whether valid or not, must be seen as subordinate to the principal one. The film in its "original" language is the film itself, its essential form, the alternate dubs are versions. Those kinds of films are not what I'm concerned with here.

When Leone was making his Westerns the Italian film industry's practice of post-looping dialogue allowed for the introduction of alternate modes of creative expression into the film/s produced. Some of this had to do with the different performances supplied by the different vocal talents recorded for different markets. But there were other factors as well, including changes to the script, sound design, music, etc. The aggregate changes made from one print to another could be substantial. When, after opening a bottle, you start adding water after every sip you take, eventually you have something that isn't wine.

I will rehearse a story known to us all. After premiering his third Italian Western in Rome in 1966, Leone took the film and recut it, then recut it again for distribution in English-speaking countries. Mickey Knox was hired to write dialogue. Vocal talents such as Eastwood, Wallach, and LVC were assembled to record lines and match them to the images on screen. For whatever reason, changes to the soundtrack were also made. A new title was chosen. When The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was released in 1967, it was a very different film from Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo.

Is GBU a version of BBC, or is BBC a version of GBU? Where lies the essential film? BBC was released first--is that sufficient to establish primacy? GBU uses vocals supplied by the three principal actors--is that sufficient to establish primacy? Is the question of primacy important at all? It isn't if you consider BBC and GBU two separate films.

Again as we all know, in 2003 an attempt was made to extend GBU by adding material from BBC with dodgy new English dubbing. Successful or not, this new version of GBU is just that--a new version of GBU. Is it also a new version of BBC? It doesn't seem very useful to think so. It is simpler to see GBU 1967 and GBU 2003 as two versions of one film, just as the Roman premier of BBC is a different version of the Western that went into subsequent release around Italy. But having looked at those films in that way, the word version then seems completely inadequate when comparing BBC (1966) to GBU (1967).

To restate: I'm not interested in applying this approach across the board. I don't care to be systematic. The films of Leone are a special area of concern. I'm interested in the alternate dubs of those films. I don't really care about the alternate dubs of other filmmakers.

Agreed. The dubbing has nothing to do with the cuts. When Harmonica "rises from the dead" at the train station at the beginning of Once Upon a Time in the West it's not like he says anything, but it still isn't present in the original version of C'era una volta il West. As an aside, I'm more annoyed about how adding that scene destroys the beautiful transition into the next scene with the McBain family than how it actually affects the story.

Of course, but I can't believe that it is impossible to release the version that was shown in the theatres back in 68. Were Leone's sins so big that god treats his films forever with imperfect releases?